On Mon, Dec 17, 2007, Dustin Sallings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Dec 16, 2007, at 19:26, Aaron Stone wrote: > >> Do we want to add 32 bits to the binary protocol for UDP sequencing? >> Has >> this been discussed before? If so, please point me in the direction of >> such a thread in the mailing list archives! > > > No, UDP support seems to be the minimal wrapping around the > underlying protocol to provide sequencing. Not sure if I can point > you to archives, but the intention should be somewhat clear. > > The purpose of a UDP based protocol would be to provide a > connectionless form of the TCP based protocol with less client and > server overhead. > > When you think about it that way, you're just implementing some of > the parts that the transport doesn't give you, so it makes sense to > not combine them in such a way that provides redundancy with your > transport. If you're optimistic, you have less overhead in general. >
Well, ok, but the only thing that the UDP header provides that the binary protocol does not now provide directly is sequence numbers for reassembling a large SET / GET. Here's an idea: we have a different magic byte that indicates that the common header is four bytes longer, and we use that magic byte for UDP traffic? Aaron
